Was the Civil War About Slavery? | 5 Minute Video
What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else entirely…perhaps states’ rights? Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, settles the debate.
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/
📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage…
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de…
📳 Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
Was the American Civil War fought because of slavery? More than 150 years later this remains a controversial question.
Why? Because many people don’t want to believe that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution. There has to be another reason, we are told. Well, there isn’t.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Slavery was, by a wide margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War — for both sides. Before the presidential election of 1860, a South Carolina newspaper warned that the issue before the country was, “the extinction of slavery,” and called on all who were not prepared to, “surrender the institution,” to act. Shortly after Abraham Lincoln’s victory, they did.
The secession documents of every Southern state made clear, crystal clear, that they were leaving the Union in order to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery — a phrase that at the time meant “the thing special to them.” The vote to secede was 169 to 0 in South Carolina, 166 to 7 in Texas, 84 to 15 in Mississippi. In no Southern state was the vote close.
Alexander Stephens of Georgia, the Confederacy’s Vice President clearly articulated the views of the South in March 1861. “Our new government,” he said, was founded on slavery. “Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, submission to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” Yet, despite the evidence, many continue to argue that other factors superseded slavery as the cause of the Civil War.
Some argue that the South only wanted to protect states’ rights. But this raises an obvious question: the states’ rights to what? Wasn’t it to maintain and spread slavery? Moreover, states’ rights was not an exclusive Southern issue. All the states — North and South — sought to protect their rights — sometimes they petitioned the federal government, sometimes they quarreled with each other. In fact, Mississippians complained that New York had too strong a concept of states’ rights because it would not allow Delta planters to bring their slaves to Manhattan. The South was preoccupied with states’ rights because it was preoccupied first and foremost with retaining slavery.
Some argue that the cause of the war was economic. The North was industrial and the South agrarian, and so, the two lived in such economically different societies that they could no longer stay together. Not true.
In the middle of the 19th century, both North and South were agrarian societies. In fact, the North produced far more food crops than did the South. But Northern farmers had to pay their farmhands who were free to come and go as they pleased, while Southern plantation owners exploited slaves over whom they had total control.
And it wasn’t just plantation owners who supported slavery. The slave society was embraced by all classes in the South. The rich had multiple motivations for wanting to maintain slavery, but so did the poor, non-slave holding whites. The “peculiar institution” ensured that they did not fall to the bottom rung of the social ladder. That’s why another argument — that the Civil War couldn’t have been about slavery because so few people owned slaves — has little merit.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/was-civil-war-about-slavery
source
Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of the Confederacy. Historians are ignorant liers to say that Lincoln was an Abolishonist that wanted to end the institution of slavery.
This did mention economic and social reasons why the South was SO resistant to abolition. Slavery was absolutely the focal point, but there's that tiny bit of "it's complicated."
I have no argument with the presentation. It was excellent.
Wouldn't you end slavery in the North before you would go to War to end slavery in the South? Our History is nothing but lies and propaganda.
Since when did PragerU start telling objectively reasonable & true information? I bet they won't have this guy over for dinner again.
Anybody who has read anything by an actual Civil War historian, or what the South itself was saying at the time, knows the war was caused by and was about slavery, and the South admitted that itself, over and over.
"I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to you the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through you, to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy.… What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? That reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction; a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery."
– Henry L, Benning, Commissioner from Georgia – "Address Delivered Before the Virginia state Convention. February 18, 1861
They didn't make those kind of statements about anything other than slavery.
So:
”Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ [or anything else] has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
.
except you didn't act to end it til1863 after concern of europeans helping the south. And did not treat the freed slaves as equals either in their units within the union army or for the next hundred years of service. and plenty of evidence that Lincoln only signed the proclamation due to preasures from others like Cassius Clay. I will never believe that every man in the confederate uniform held those beliefs just as not every soldier in uniform since has always held the same as the generals or politicians at their time of service.even today most of the members of our goverment do not represent the beliefs or morals or standards of those they claim to represent, why the hell would you believe they did then? the Debate is not settled and can not be settled by anyone who was not there. but does it matter as history is written by the victor and rewritten by ruling parties at their leisure.
The great irony is that a very few white southerners owned slaves, most weren't economically that much better off than slaves themselves. Some actually worse.
Taxation was a reason also.
He forgets to mention that cotton took more hands and that The South wanted to move cotton processing to The South and that right after they planed this, there was one picture of a slave being beaten that was used to fuel the war, as if all slaves were treated in this manner. Still to this day, only one picture of a tortured slave exists.
This video bends the truth in some areas and is choosey with his quotes, giving false impressions.
The emancipation proclamation DID NOT FREE NORTHERN SLAVES and Lincoln actually only "freed" the southern slaves as part of a battle plan. Lincoln had NO CONTROL OVER THE SOUTH at the time because they had seceded and had a new president, so the proclamation was basically bunk (sadly). "All persons held as slaves shall be forever free" was basically a lie at the time 😭
Prior and early in the war Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth (so easy at the time). Lincoln actually offered the southern seceding states an iron clad promise that if they stuck with the union he'd guarantee their rights to continue with slavery as they pleased. I question whether or not there wasn't much more to the the secession, especially fed to the general population who would be paying the ultimate price rich plantation interests (propaganda). Texas in particular had many other grievances with Lincoln and the union.
I loved Lincoln so it's with regret that I say this. But it's the truth! It also doesn't let the south off the hook for their determination to hold onto slavery! This edited version of the CW complexities is an attempt to try and make our fed govt look good, as well as the northern republicans opposed to the southern democrats (which is basically true despite the video only highlighting the former).
Edited: Removed incorrect statement that "Delaware had more slaves than any other state north or south".
Short answer yes
Longer answer: the states rights
(To continue slavery)
Yes it was
A PRAGER U VIDEO IS ACTUALLY GOOD?????
The video is good, but why is West Virginia part of the confederacy? The solely reason of West Virginia's existence is that it remained loyal to the union unlike the rest of Virginia.
Rare prager u W
Thanks!
Good vs evil. Democrats are evil.
Is that why most southern Generals stated it was to maintain states rights. And the westward expansion made them fear theybwould never have representation ever again?
Now inevitably all states south mason dixon then became slave states
Lincoln was not the good guy
On Colonization (Address to a Group of African American Leaders, 1862):
"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I am not able to judge. But I think it is best for both to be separated."
hatred for the south for other reasons. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -Abraham Lincoln.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
for some Union states, it was almost two and a half years after the Civil War ended (and over a year after the 13th Amendment passed) that slavery was fully abolished in practice.
This guy acts as though there is no question about why the north caught and that’s an out and out lie. Slavery and racism is wrong but to act like the south was the only bad guy is ignorant of history. Why were black men chased down and hung on the streets of New York when Lincoln announced the war was about slaves? Why did the north not care for the slaves after the war but instead turned them into perpetual second class citizens for decades? If the war was about slavery then why did the north and the president not make the free people a priority to care for after the war?
On Colonization (Address to a Group of African American Leaders, 1862):
"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I am not able to judge. But I think it is best for both to be separated."
hatred for the south for other reasons. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -Abraham Lincoln.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
History is more complex than a five minute YouTube Video. Part of the truth is, that the North managed to be prosperous without slaves, and the south's entire wealth relied on cotton picking slaves. So in a way being against slavery was a luxury the South couldn't/didn't want to afford.
Also part of the truth: they should have restructured their whole business model, and obviously they had terrible morals in not seeing a fellow human being in slaves. Both are true. But also true: we'll never know what the north's opinion on slaves would have been if they would have had to rely on them for wealth. They might have still been against it… or not. Either way, history is complex! So screaming SOUTH BAD, NORTH GOOD = not smart
The civil war was not fought over slavery. It was fought over money and power.Period…!!!!Like all wars over the years
Prager U just got my respect. They've been know to have conservative bias, but it sure is nice when we can set aside our biases and just spread truth: good, bad, or ugly.
Slavery was just a part of the economic system and disagreements. Should any humans be owned? Hell no. Never. Was the Civil War fought over slavery? No. All you liberals need to realize this. It's not all about your causes that are made up solely for political initiatives and to make money (…steal money?). Both the reds and the blues do it, but 95+% of the time, it's the political left and their sub-100 IQ dog whistle followers. Go adhere to your party politics, people; I'd rather everyone be able to think independently, but that's becoming quite rare these days.
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yes
The author was pretty good and what he just said is what I was taught from another military teacher
Single most important but BUT not the only reason
Prager u knew this was to well known to lie about 💀
Then why go to war and kill 700,000 people? If you do not agree with slavery – let the southern states leave the union, and that is it.
Yes, the war was about slavery – but the true reasons are different from the common politically correct narrative. The North realized that slave labor was not efficient enough to enable them to compete economically on the world stage. The North needed more efficient workforce producing cotton for their industries – this was the underlying reason. The politically correct "moral" narrative was invented after the war – because history is written by victors. I deeply regret that such a respected institution as Praeger University keeps repeating this baloney to this day.
Yes, it was. 🤷🏻♂️
Wow!! PragerU being based? Rare W
People sympathetic to the Confederacy: “we’re not racist we just want state rights to maintain slavery!” Such an obvious difference come on people
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
My 8th grade history teacher said that the civil war was about economy, not slavery. This video says otherwise.
No matter how you slice it, it always comes back to slavery. The Cause of the war is not "secession." "Secession" is just another name for rebellion and was just a tactic, a means to protect slavery. The Cause of the war is what was behind that desire to rebel … SLAVERY
.
Respectfully, the initial casus belli was Secession. Secession was done to preserve slavery, but slavery was not the principal cause. The South violated the Constitution by seceding AND by declaring war on the legally established government. Freeing the slaves was not by any means the first priority of the Government, and didn't come until much later with the Emancipation Proclamation in January, 1863.
Northern farmers had to pay their farmers. True. Also, the south was littered with crackers and rednecks who did about as little work as possible. Their's was the predecessor to the "work" ethic appearing in many urban blacks transplanted from the south.
What a clear, just and honest explanation! Thank you!!
Republicans defend the Confederacy and slavery "as a states rights issue" right out of the Dixiecrat textbook. And GOP claims the party switch never happened. LOOL
History is written by the victor right? Right? Oh not THIS time though lol
astoundingly rare prageru W
yes
Yes constitution of confederate states of America says it was about slavery. Better not to listen to fourth rate academics like seidule. And Davis Hanson. And why do so many of these people in the commentariat who espouse reactionary views choose to live in California instead of say Mississippi or Alabama. They wouldn’t last two minutes in those hellish states and would flee or commit suicide if they were planted there hypocrisy
Rebuttal:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc
Rebuttal:
The Civil War was Not for Slavery
Youtube.com/BodeLang
A most excellent video. As a Veteran, the casual use of the confederate battle flag has always bothered me.
States rights to do what? (reference, its not bad)